Just been reading on the DOI forum about how the initial celebs (however they were selected, assume an offer does the rounds of the agents??) are narrowed down through assessments of their co-ordination, flexibility and ability to retain info...now obviously DOI carries greater risks to the celebs, but you still end up with considerable differences in ability by the time they're down to the actual contestants!

So does anyone know how the eventual contestants are selected for SCD?

(Sorry if this has been asked before, if it has I have missed it)

I dunno how it works really. DOI is different in that ice is so dangerous- Micheal Underwood broke his ankle last year. I think they have standby's in case of injury. I think it puts a lot of bigger stars off doing it. Meaning they end up with z-listers.

SCD can literally have their pick of celebs because so many of them want to do it. I suppose they have a wish list the same as all reality shows do.

Not sure what the selection criteria is...but guess the Beeb will be more careful next year, when selecting, to avoid another Sergeantgate.

Selection process:

Ex Eastender? - check
Breakfast TV host - check
Retired sportsman/woman - check
Failed pop star - check!!

... thats my theory.....

Hmm, cynical me thinks the Beeb probably loved all the publicity this year's SCD got. I'm not sure how much of an impact it would've made otherwise!

Don't think they'll be loving having to fork out for all John's phone vote refunds though!

I'm convinced they ask most people in the public eye, tbh!

I've heard so many celebs drop it into interviews that they've been asked to do Strictly!

Kate Silverton, Fiona Bruce, Richard Madeley, Alan Titchmarch, Nicky Campbell ... to name a few!

I read an interview with Alan Carr when he said he'd been asked to do Strictly a few times.

On other threads I've suggested that they deliberately go for a mix of potential ability, although I am not sure how they arrive at it (you can't completely predict how good or bad somebody will be)

SCD gets more presenters and BBC types looking for a new job. I wouldn't say DOI had lower grade celebs though - its the same mixture of soap, music, sport and joke candidates. SCD had Alesha, Rachel and Emma - DOI had Suzanne , Duncan and Gareth, athletes match athlete, former tennis player matches former tennis player, Eastender's stars match Corrie or Hollyoaks people. Hopeless case meets hopeless case. DOI is just harder and more dangerous.

SCD has dud people to go early after a laugh , good people to hang around, good people who may improve and a few who should be worthy of a final. The problem is if the casting is too strong in the dud department and the top end dancers don't fit the usual model of succesful winners with bubbly personalities or tear jerking stories. Then the duds stay on and on because the early voting public is voting anti-judge. The dud dancers hang around, the good people go, the improvers get lost or don't get long enough and the show is lucky if two decent dancers make the final.

Its not easy to see how they get around that. The supply of bubbly Aleshas is finite. The male sportsman journey story has been repeated to death. They also seem stuck on the joke early leavers who then get the anti-judge vote. Without dud dancers to go early the interesting people cast for potential stories will go but with dud dancers in they now go anyway. This series seems to have wasted Jessie and Gillian and Heather by not having worse people to go first. Having only one truly dud dancer who won't go ruined the stories of more people every week he stayed so you really want unlikeable dud dancers or to forget the idea. There's also a problem with the people on a journey this series only getting so far but it works less if their stories are lost in the JS noise. The same problem comes up again relying on the voters at the top end - a competition between 2 or 3 good dancers would be ideal ( you could back someone knowing they would probably make it ) but they have to put more in with the JS vote lingering just to make sure 2 or 3 make the final competitive - there are enough spares here to fill 2/3 of next year's final too. .

Having been a proponent of a "good-dancer only last few weeks" in previous years, I've come to be critical of the idea that anyone should be entered at the start on the premise that they (probably) cannot or should not win....and the "dud" policy of which you speak. IMHO, either the producers make it truly competitive by holding auditions or accept the original formula whereby better dancers go before lesser ones.